For some of you this post may seem superfluous and that is fine. For those of you that have an interest in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and have zero background knowledge in economics I recommend starting at the link above that says Index. As noted in the About link, it is mostly a deconstruction of Bill Mitchell’s work into what I believe to be more manageable pieces. There are only two significant categories, LayPerson and Economics – the Economics category is the more advanced post. You should have little trouble following the category Economics if you read the blog posts in sequence. Admittedly, you may have to read some posts twice to understand them fully.

For the people that have had some economics training or some form of economics background, I recommend placing your mouse cursor over the Resources link above and selecting MMT for Economists from the drop down lists. I give you fair warning though many of the propositions you hold to be true will be challenged along the way, the very foundation of your economic thinking may be challenged.

The FAQs or Frequently Asked Questions are still very much a work in progress and you are welcome to add your own. Other things you might like to see are Audio Visuals listed on the Video tab and the drop-down section Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In. Yes they are two distinct links. The latter are individual videos whilst the former are playlists you might like to view and review.

The Resources and Other tab also provide links to written pieces on Modern Monetary Mechanics often called Modern Monetary Theory but it is only a theory in its recommendations or prescriptions, not the description of how modern money works today. And of course there are a few links to check out under Links in the right side-bar towards the bottom of the page.

Feel free to comment on making changes to the above so it can be more easily understood.

Modern Monetary Theory recognises that the government has infinite capacity to spend and that the constraint on spending is always inflation never insolvency. One of the many myths that crop up about MMT is that it allows an infinite size deficit. This is false. MMT has always stated that the limit to spending are the real resources available. This is just another way of saying spending can be inflationary. The inflation constraint has been dealt with elsewhere by all and sundry in the MMT community. Perhaps it is a question of solvency instead? The answer is simple how can a currency issuer go involuntarily broke? It can’t.

Many think it can because of the Government Budget Constraint (GBC). In the current orthodox economic view is that the budget must be financed either by printing money and/or borrowing money from the public.

However, this is merely an accounting statement. In a stock-flow consistent macroeconomics, this statement will always hold. That is, it has to be true if all the transactions between the government and non-government sector have been corrected added and subtracted.

So in terms of MMT, the previous equation is just an ex post accounting identity that has to be true by definition and has not real economic importance.

But for the mainstream economist, the equation represents an ex ante (before the fact) financial constraint that the government is bound by. The difference between these two conceptions is very significant and the second (mainstream) interpretation cannot be correct if governments issue fiat currency (unless they place voluntary constraints on themselves to act as if it is).

So you can see the difference is that the current orthodox view is that the GBC must be financed by printing money and/or borrowing money from the public and that the Modern Monetary Theory view is that a currency issuer can issue currency & bonds and the GBC is just an accounting identity. It is nothing to worry about.

The confusion lies in those who want to represent MMT by the sectoral balances framework – as if that is the extent of it. In this blog – Stock-flow consistent macro models – I explain why accounting is important for a macroeconomist.

Flows add to stocks and you have to track those relationships consistently over time. One still has to theorise about what determines the flows and their inter-relationships but if you try to make statements that do not add up then you are lost in ad hocery and nonsense.

The two linked blog posts above should help anyone with any queries about human behaviour and the Stock Flow Consistency of the Sectoral Balances and Accounting Identity.

At the end of the day, MMT plugs in behavioural assumptions to this accounting identity. These assumptions are contestable but consistent with relationships that hold at the macro level.

It is always good to see Modern Monetary Theory get some publicity. I get to add another post to the Critic Engagement section. 🙂

Richard Holden, a professor at UNSW has a go at critiquing MMT on The Conversation. He is schooled by those that are MMT advocates, sympathisers and those with a better understanding of MMT in the Comments section.

So here’s my challenge to the modern monetary theory crowd. Please state a formal, precise, economic model in which a monetary authority can extract an infinite amount of real resources through seigniorage. Or be quiet.

To Professor Holden’s credit, he does somewhat engage in conversation in the comments though not to a great extent. In a response he writes:

Here’s Mitchell in his own words: “the Federal government is not financially constrained and can spend as much as it chooses up to the limit of what is offered for sale. There is not inevitability that this spending will be inflationary and it does not necessarily require any increase in government debt”.

‘limit of what is offered for sale’ – does not equate to infinite resources. Do you disagree?

Until Professor Holden engages with that very question, he has nothing substantive to say about Modern Monetary Theory.

I am delighted to see more Australian economists engaging in a Conversation about MMT including Warwick Smith from the University of Melbourne. This economist examines things closely and contextual with a line by line analysis in part:

OK, part one is presumably OK. The federal government can create money with keystrokes on a computer. They can, in theory, buy anything that is offered for sale in Australian dollars. Do you dispute that? He’s not claiming they can buy anything with no limit. That’s a very different claim and appears to be WHAT YOU THINK HE’S SAYING. (Emphasis mine)

The economist from the University of Melbourne and myself are in complete agreement. So Professor Holden’s challenge has zero bearing on MMT as he insists that it says something it does not.

As for questions of whether MMT has been modelled – Professor Holden can start here:

Do you suffer confusion over Stock Flow Consistency? Are you a mainstream economist certain that your model is Stock Flow Consistent but you confused by the new economic school on the scene Modern Monetary Theory that claims it is Stock Flow Consistent?